Granted by judicial decree: What is granted by judicial decree is often a fragile victory. What is granted by judicial decree may later be overruled in a subsequent court case. Such is the case with same-sex marriage or what is often referred to as gay marriage. Without assurances by securing through the legislative process the gains made through the Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health may be lost in a new legal challenge.

An argument may be put forth that the Attorney General’s office and the State of Massachusetts failed to strongly defend heterosexual marriage and as result Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to allow homosexual marriage. How strong of a defense of gay marriage will be put forth by the Attorney General’s office and the State of Massachusetts should a legal challenge be brought against gay marriage? It is widely believed the Attorney General has aspirations to continue holding public office and possibly be a candidate for the governor’s office.

Those who raise a legal challenge to gay marriage will be presenting their arguments against gay marriage and it will be the responsibility of the Attorney General’s office to overcome them in defending the State of Massachusetts allowing gay marriage. There are several arguments against gay marriage and one need to look no further than the case put forth by those gays who oppose gay marriage. Not all gays advocate for marriage, but rather seek sexual liberation. I have written and presented information on this ideological conflict of assimilation and sexual liberation in previous handouts. The consequences of sexual liberation are clearly known and even the popular gay media reports of the negative medical consequences to sexual promiscuity among male homosexuals. They are also reported in the articles and books published by those advocating for homosexuality. In addition, they are reported in medical literature, including publications by the federal government’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Another source of arguments against the case for gay marriage will be other successful and failed legal challenges to gay marriage. There have been numerous such challenges in both federal and state courts. Of these legal challenges the first challenge to study will be the Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health case itself. Before I present information from this case I want discuss this question. Who one is, a homosexual or what one does, homosexuality? The case the latter is much stronger, even homosexuals acknowledge it in their numerous articles and books. No one is born a homosexual.

Why is this important? Because homosexuals fail to qualify as a suspect class. No court federal or state has granted homosexuals suspect class status. There are four Indicia of Suspectedness that can be used to determine if a group is a suspect class, history of purposeful discrimination, political powerlessness, immutable trait, and grossly unfair. Homosexuals fail to qualify for suspect class status because homosexuality is not an immutable trait; no one is born a homosexual. Yet in Chief Marshal’s opinion written for the majority in the Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health she writes about homosexuals being a certain class of persons. Is she implying here that homosexuals are members of a suspect class? Emphasis has been added with some words being in bold type. The quotes are from her opinion that was found at www.state.ma.us/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html

If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage’s solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit. [FN29]

We are concerned only with the withholding of the benefits, protections, and obligations of civil marriage from a certain class of persons for invalid reasons. Our decision in no way limits the rights of individuals to refuse to marry persons of the same sex for religious or any other reasons. It in no way limits the personal freedom to disapprove of, or to encourage others to disapprove of, same-sex marriage. Our concern, rather, is whether historical, cultural, religious, or other reasons permit the State to impose limits on personal beliefs concerning whom a person should marry.

Not only is it important that no court federal or state has granted homosexuals suspect class status because they recognize that no one is born a homosexual, there are teens and young adults today who no longer choose to accept the labels of gay or lesbian. So, if there are no gays why is called it gay marriage? These teens and young adults acknowledge having same-sex attractions may even exhibit homosexual behavior and commit homosexual physical sexual acts but reject the labels of gay or lesbian.

This refusal of accepting labels by teens and young adults is being reported in both the popular secular and popular homosexual media. An article in the January 4, 2004 of the Washington Post was titled “Partway Gay? For Some Teen Girls, Sexual Preference Is a Shifting Concept” This article is written about the lives of young women in the Washington D.C. area. It is also discussed in Ritch C. Savin-Williams latest book published by Harvard University Press, The New Gay Teenager. Savin-Williams self-identifies as gay and has written extensively on gay teenagers. In this latest book, he writes of how the professionals’ understanding of gay adolescence has changed. In doing so he acknowledges the poor research that was done and faulty conclusions that were drawn. This book published in 2005 also confirms that teens and young adults are rejecting the labels of gay and lesbian while exhibiting homosexual behavior and committing homosexual physical sexual acts.

Perhaps the most interesting source of information about young people today who no longer choose to accept the labels of gay; or lesbian is the current issue, August 16, 2005, of The Advocate. This phrase is printed on the cover, of the national gay and lesbian news magazine. In a section called GENQ is an article titled, “Same-sex but not gay”.